The study makes several bold assertions:
Human CO2 emissions are negligible: It claims that human emissions account for only 4% of the annual carbon cycle, suggesting they are insignificant compared to natural carbon fluxes.
Criticism of climate models: The authors argue that models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fail to accurately predict temperature trends and sea ice extent, rendering their conclusions unreliable.
Natural drivers as the primary cause: The study emphasizes solar variability and temperature feedbacks as better explanations for global warming, dismissing the need to attribute it to human-induced factors.
Use of unadjusted data: It relies on unadjusted observational datasets, which it claims provide a more accurate picture than the adjusted data typically used in mainstream climate science.
Climate Change: A Natural Cycle or a Political Tool?
Earth’s climate has been shifting for billions of years, long before humans existed to influence it. Ice Ages have given way to warm interglacial periods, and the planet has weathered it all without a single factory smokestack or gas-guzzling car. Today, we’re told that human CO2 emissions are pushing the climate into unprecedented chaos. But history, science, and cutting-edge technology—like artificial intelligence—suggest this story doesn’t hold up.
A History of Natural Warmth
The Earth’s past is dotted with warm periods that rival or exceed today’s temperatures, all without industrial CO2. Take the Roman Warm Period, around 2,000 years ago, when Mediterranean summers were balmy enough for open-toed sandals and thriving vineyards. Or the Medieval Warm Period, about 1,000 years ago, when Vikings turned Greenland’s grassy plains into farmland—hardly the icy wasteland it is now. These warm spells gave way to chills like the Little Ice Age, from the 14th to 19th centuries, when frozen rivers and brutal winters tested human endurance. These natural swings show that climate change isn’t a modern anomaly—it’s business as usual for Earth.
The Industrial Paradox
The Industrial Revolution kicked off in the late 18th century, flooding the atmosphere with CO2. Yet, from the 1940s to the 1970s, global temperatures dropped, sparking fears of an impending Ice Age. This cooling happened while CO2 levels climbed—a glaring contradiction to the claim that CO2 is the climate’s master switch. If CO2 were the unstoppable force it’s made out to be, why didn’t the planet keep warming?
Politics Over Science
In 1988, U.S. Senate hearings—staged with open windows to crank up the heat—catapulted human-induced warming into public consciousness. But even the IPCC, in its 2001 report, conceded that climate is a “chaotic system” beyond long-term prediction. NASA’s GISS director later admitted their models churn out “insanely scary—and wrong” forecasts. Despite these red flags, these shaky models prop up policies that smell more like economic overhaul than environmental salvation.
The Green New Deal: Climate or Economics?
With science this shaky, why the rush to policies like the Green New Deal? Its backers admit it’s less about CO2 and more about “changing the entire economy.” Climate alarmism starts to look like a Trojan horse for political and economic upheaval, not a lifeline for a dying planet.
Conclusion: Science Over Politics
Earth’s history of natural climate shifts, the doubts of top scientists, and AI’s data-driven reality check all point to one thing: the CO2 panic is overblown. The Green New Deal and its ilk aren’t about saving us—they’re about remaking society under a green banner. Real environmental issues deserve attention, but they won’t be solved by chasing a manufactured crisis. Let’s stick to the facts, not the politics.
More here.